I feel that a symbolic approach would be easier to start with and it could be feasible with better insight and some stronger methods. I do, however, also feel that (what I think is) a gated recurrent artificial neural network with n-space mapping (or bus-state mapping) could be made to work, but this would in essence be very similar to a hybrid approach.
Jim Bromer On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 9:57 PM, Ben Goertzel <[email protected]> wrote: > The paper is here... http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.03229 > > Sensationalist media article here: > > http://www.iflscience.com/technology/scientists-create-artificial-system-capable-learning-human-language > > This is from Angelo Cangelosi (among others), who works with the iCub > robot and gave a keynote at AGI-12 at Oxford... > > It's very good stuff, but unlike what that news article says, this is not > the first time automated response-generation has been done w/ neural > nets.... I recall a paper by some Russian dude giving similar results in > the "Artificial Brains" special issue of Neurocomputing that Hugo DeGaris > and I co-edited some years ago... > > What distinguishes this work is more the sophistication of the underlying > cognitive architecture ... maybe it works better than prior NNs trained for > dialogue-response or maybe it doesn't; careful comparison isn't given > (understandably -- there is no standard test corpus for this stuff, and > prior researchers mostly didn't open their code).... But the cognitive > architecture is very carefully constructed in a psychologically realistic > way; combined with the interesting practical results, this is pretty > nifty... > > The training method is interesting, incrementally feeding the system facts > with increasing complexity, while interacting with it along the way, and > letting it build up its knowledge bit by bit. A couple weeks ago I talked > to a Russian company at RobotWorld in Korea who was training a Russian NLP > dialogue system in a similar way.... (again with those Russians!!) > > Note that with this method, the system can respond to questions involving > the word "dad" without really knowing what a "dad" is (e.g. without knowing > that a dad is a human or is older than a child, etc.). This is just fine, > and people can do this too. But we should avoid assuming that just > because it gives responses that, if heard from a human, would result from a > certain sort of understanding, the system is demonstrating that same sort > of understanding. This system is building up question-response patterns > from the data fed into it, and then performing some generalization. The AI > question is whether the kind of generalization it is performing is really > the right kind to support generally intelligent cognition. > > My thought is that the kind of processing their network is doing, actually > plays only a minor supporting rule in human question-answering and dialogue > behavior. They are using a somewhat realistic cognitive architecture for > reactive processing, and a somewhat realistic neural learning mechanism -- > but the way the learning mechanism is used within the architecture for > processing language, is not very much like the way the brain processes > language. The consequence of this difference is that their system is not > really forming the kinds of abstractions that a human mind (even a child's > mind) automatically forms when processing this kind of linguistic > information.... The result of this is that the kinds of > question-answering, question-asking, concept formation etc. their system > can do will not actually resemble that of a human child, even though their > system's answer-generation process may, under certain restrictions, give > results resembling those you get from a human child... > > These observations do not really contradict anything they say in the > paper, at least upon my quick read.... > > An interesting step, anyway... > > > -- > Ben Goertzel, PhD > http://goertzel.org > > "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one > persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress > depends on the unreasonable man." -- George Bernard Shaw > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/24379807-653794b5> | > Modify > <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> > Your Subscription <http://www.listbox.com> > ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
